Liquor privatization won't turn out the way this 'expert' says: PennLive letters

Research scientist Roland Zullo’s testimony on liquor privatization is mere speculation, not science (“Senate liquor privatization hearing heats up as Cawley testifies,” June 5). His claim that privatization would dry up revenue is contradicted by the results in Washington state, which privatized liquor sales one year ago — leaving Pennsylvania and Utah as the last remaining relics of the Prohibition era.

Mr. Zullo fails to account for a key principle of free market economics — growth. Before privatizing, Washington state had 329 government-run stores; now it has 1,400 private retailers. And just one year later, sales have increased by 200,000 liters per month. More sales mean more tax revenue. The title of The Seattle Times’ one year retrospective says it all: “State Revenues Grow from Liquor Privatization.”

Moreover, because privatization will generate more stores selling more products, consumers will stop leaving the state to find the choice and convenience missing in here. Border bleed results in $40 million in lost tax revenue in the Philadelphia region alone.

And prices? The PLCB has a 30 percent markup on its products and charges an additional handling fee on each bottle sold. No wonder consumers near Pennsylvania’s borders head to other states to purchase liquor. Eliminating these fees and introducing competition will drive prices down — not up.

Mr. Zullo should update his data because the results are in — liquor privatization means more revenue, lower prices, and greater job growth in Pennsylvania.